• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

"The Drone Papers"

As an aside to my brothers/sisters on active duty, got an email saying that any downloading of what I suspect this original link includes would constitute an additional information spillage. No idea what it says, as I didn't click the link for that reason, but be careful. No reason we can't discuss the issues brought up in this thread at the unclass level, but I'd personally not perpetuate the transfer of stuff that shouldn't have been out there in the first place.
 
This seems to be a consequence of exactly what Uncle Fester pointed out.

"If we can't interrogate them, we'll just shoot them."



_
 
MIDNJAC said:
As an aside to my brothers/sisters on active duty, got an email saying that any downloading of what I suspect this original link includes would constitute an additional information spillage. No idea what it says, as I didn't click the link for that reason, but be careful. No reason we can't discuss the issues brought up in this thread at the unclass level, but I'd personally not perpetuate the transfer of stuff that shouldn't have been out there in the first place.
Click to expand...


Here ya go. "Servicemembers, civilian employees and government contractors who view a recently published cache of classified documents containing intimate details of the controversial U.S. drone program could be putting their security clearance at risk, according to a Washington D.C. attorney."

Same thing we heard with WikiLeaks dump a few years ago.
 
I don't entirely understand that rational but okay...if a mod wants to go ahead and unlink or delete that be my guest. I'm going to go hide in a corner...facing the wall.
 
I wouldn't try to over-think it, but ultimately if you have a classified document on your computer - even if it's now in the public domain - it's still classified. Clicking on a link to a story is one thing, but I'm sure you could find copies of the original classified slide decks out on the interwebs if you did a little digging. Having that on your computer would be a bad thing.
 
Brett327 said:
I wouldn't try to over-think it, but ultimately if you have a classified document on your computer - even if it's now in the public domain - it's still classified. Clicking on a link to a story is one thing, but I'm sure you could find copies of the original classified slide decks out on the interwebs if you did a little digging. Having that on your computer would be a bad thing.
Click to expand...
It doesn't take that much looking - RLSOs reaction piece article has a link to the slide decks in the 2nd paragraph.
 
Brett327 said:
I wouldn't try to over-think it, but ultimately if you have a classified document on your computer - even if it's now in the public domain - it's still classified. Clicking on a link to a story is one thing, but I'm sure you could find copies of the original classified slide decks out on the interwebs if you did a little digging. Having that on your computer would be a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Unless you have a private server and worked for the State Depatment...
Then it can be chalked up to partisan politics.
 
Duc'-guy25 said:
I...If Imabadguy over in Somolia or Yemen is talking on a cell phone or exchanging emails with his comrades about how they can load up a truck with C4 and fertilizer and start carrying out coordinated or uncoordinated attacks on our military or civilian assets and infrastructures, seems like some solid evidence to throw a Hellfire through their window.
Click to expand...

Although I think I understand your point, I find this sentence disturbing. Is this the new standard we should be using to strike? Does the mere act of planning a future terrorist attack warrant killing someone? Or were you talking about bombing Mr. Imabadguy who has already planned and carried out past terror attacks? The latter, I find justifiable, the former sets a very dangerous precedent in my opinion. I agree, we don't need to wait until they strap on C4 and charge the gate before we shoot, but there still needs to be a minimum threat assessment before we just start striking targets for what we think they're going to do, or even what they say they might do. It's a very fine line.

On the subject of leaks, I find this continued flagrant disregard for the safeguarding of information to be not only despicable, but extremely counterproductive to our military's ability to operate efficiently in secure settings. Every time crap like this gets "leaked" by "whistleblowers", another layer of administrative bureaucracy gets added which makes it harder to get, maintain, and use clearances for jobs critical to defending and maintaining our way of life. In addition, it adds to the enemy propaganda machine against us. I do not, and will never understand why people see this as anything less than aiding and abetting our enemies.
 
sevenhelmet said:
I do not, and will never understand why people see this as anything less than aiding and abetting our enemies.
Click to expand...
Because large swaths of the GOP hate the Federal government, and large swaths of the Democratic Party hate the military. And they've all seen too many Hollywood movies and TV shows where The Brave Whistleblower Speaks Truth to Power, and they actually think the world works that way.

I'm sure there are several foreign actors willing to encourage said buffoonery to some extent, though of course speculating about the specifics here would be unproductive and silly.
 
sevenhelmet said:
Is this the new standard we should be using to strike? Does the mere act of planning a future terrorist attack warrant killing someone?
Click to expand...

No sir, I understand your concern and I should have painted a better picture with my words. Two guys spitballing over their mass homicidal fantasies is not enough to take a lethal action. It may be of serious concern, but not enough for the hellfire through the window. Obviously intent, capability, and momentum are must in the decision to strike a target. My argument was more towards not considering email exchanges and phone conversations reliable intelligence when a person of interest is declaring intentions and coordinating specific plans, hence incriminating themselves in the process. I believe this creates a solid base of evidence the person is a known imminent threat, and action needs to be taken prior to reaching our borders. Once its becomes apparent the the gears are in motion, I don't think a lethal action is unreasonable. My only argument would be planning a future terrorist attack is far from a mere act.
 
Duc'-guy25 said:
...Two guys spitballing over their mass homicidal fantasies is not enough to take a lethal action....Obviously intent, capability, and momentum are must in the decision to strike a target. ...My only argument would be planning a future terrorist attack is far from a mere act.
Click to expand...

This goes back to my point about treating terrorists as a military target vs a criminal suspect.

If this were another state entity we were at war with, would anyone say that we should only bomb them if they were planning an imminent attack? "We can't strike that group of soldiers, they're not within X miles of our guys, so we can't prove they plan to attack".

Conducting strikes against an enemy's soldiers before they attack makes good tactical sense and is completely within the Law of Armed Conflict. There's absolutely no court-of-law or rules of evidence standard required. The reason we don't treat them as soldiers is because 1) it would be implicitly recognizing their organization as a state actor, and 2) it would severely limit our ability to legally persecute them for terrorist acts if we did catch them.
 
sevenhelmet said:
Although I think I understand your point, I find this sentence disturbing. Is this the new standard we should be using to strike? Does the mere act of planning a future terrorist attack warrant killing someone? Or were you talking about bombing Mr. Imabadguy who has already planned and carried out past terror attacks? The latter, I find justifiable, the former sets a very dangerous precedent in my opinion. I agree, we don't need to wait until they strap on C4 and charge the gate before we shoot, but there still needs to be a minimum threat assessment before we just start striking targets for what we think they're going to do, or even what they say they might do. It's a very fine line.
Click to expand...

I firmly believe so, we can't sit back and wait to be attacked before taking action. Fester puts it much better below.

Uncle Fester said:
This goes back to my point about treating terrorists as a military target vs a criminal suspect.

If this were another state entity we were at war with, would anyone say that we should only bomb them if they were planning an imminent attack? "We can't strike that group of soldiers, they're not within X miles of our guys, so we can't prove they plan to attack".

Conducting strikes against an enemy's soldiers before they attack makes good tactical sense and is completely within the Law of Armed Conflict. There's absolutely no court-of-law or rules of evidence standard required. The reason we don't treat them as soldiers is because 1) it would be implicitly recognizing their organization as a state actor, and 2) it would severely limit our ability to legally persecute them for terrorist acts if we did catch them.
Click to expand...
 
Flash said:
I firmly believe so, we can't sit back and wait to be attacked before taking action. Fester puts it much better below.
Click to expand...
It's classic ROE phrasing, not to get into details of those here. Hostile act vs hostile intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top